Master of Arts / Department of Modern Languages / Earl K. Brown / This paper reports on a study that analyzes how a sequential bilingual speaker (L1 Mexican Spanish, L2 American English) uses stylistic phonetic variation in different speech types during an interview (short answer, spontaneous speech, dramatic anecdote, reading) to construct a dynamic gay persona. There are many stylistic variables that can interact when an individual is creating a persona in an interaction, and this becomes even more complex when analyzing L1 speech as well as L2 speech as there are two collections of stylistic phonetic variables (indexical fields) interacting from two different cultural ideologies available to the interlocutors. It is problematic to assign one distinct variable to an identity, such as gay, as it homogenizes a diverse social group of individuals and underestimates members' ability to manage perceptual salience of their identity as a gay individual based on context and social pressure(s). While the field of Lavender Linguistics (language use associated with the LGBTQ community) has shown that there are many resources that can be used to "sound gay," this case study focuses on how a speaker stylistically creates a gay persona throughout the interview through stylistic variation of two principle variables: 1) word-final /s/ duration, and 2) center of gravity of word-final /s/.

Ce mémoire porte sur les transformations sociohistoriques du gayle en Afrique du Sud, une variété linguistique de l’afrikaans et de l'anglais, au répertoire lexical souvent improvisé. S’appuyant sur six mois de terrain ethnographique au Cap, ce travail se base sur des données (méta)linguistiques tirées d’observation participante ainsi que d’entretiens individuels et de groupe au sein de la communauté coloured. Je critique une perspective qui envisage le gayle comme une « anti-langue » (Halliday 1976), une méthode de communication secrète et exclusive à une communauté fermée. Plutôt, je suggère que le phénomène est mieux compris lorsqu’abordé en tant que registre d'une communauté de pratique (Eckert et McConnell-Ginet 2003). Mes entretiens révèlent son association historique et « enregistrée » avec la figure caractérologique (Agha 2007) de l’homosexuel efféminé coloured ou « moffie ». Toutefois, les participants expriment un malaise face à cette idéologie puisqu’ils sont conscients que cette construction « efface » (Gal et Irvine 2000) les locuteurs non canoniques du gayle. Au-delà de la description lexicale, mon analyse suggère des chevauchements entre les caractéristiques sémantiques et pragmatiques de la variété, toutes deux stratégiquement déployées pour invoquer des caractéristiques évanescentes et des attributs sociaux dans l’interaction (Butler 1990). Au même titre que les éléments du répertoire ne correspondent pas à des significations sémantiques fixes – mais plutôt à des réalisations discursives contingentes – l’utilisation du gayle ne se limite pas à des identités sociales statiques. L'appartenance à la communauté est plutôt marquée par l’utilisation légitime et la compréhension mutuelle de déviations lexicales créatives et contextuelles. / This thesis focuses on sociohistorical transformations of Gayle, a linguistic variety consisting of an often-improvised lexical repertoire superimposed upon either Afrikaans or English in South Africa. Based on six months of fieldwork in Cape Town, this thesis draws on rich (meta)linguistic data drawn from participant-observation, as well as individual and group interviews within the coloured community. I critique an 'anti-language' (Halliday 1976) perspective, wherein Gayle is seen as uniquely anchored to a closed community for which it serves as an exclusive, ingroup code. Rather, I suggest that Gayle is best understood when approached as the register of a community of practice (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 2003). My interviews expose the historical and 'enregistered' association of Gayle with the racialized, gendered and sexualized ‘characterological figure’ (Agha 2007) of the effeminate coloured gay man or 'moffie'. This association serves as a backdrop to contemporary anxieties about the ways in which Gayle is mapped onto speakers’ social identities and perhaps shows the respondent’s consciousness that these formulations ‘erase’ (Irvine and Gal 2000) non-canonical users of Gayle. Moving beyond lexical description, I suggest overlaps between the semantic and pragmatic features of the variety, both strategically deployed to invoke evanescent characteristics and social attributes in interaction (cf. Butler 1990). Just as elements of the Gayle repertoire do not code for fixed semantic meanings – but are rather contingent, discursive achievements – Gayle does not 'code for' static social identities. Instead, it achieves group belonging in interaction through legitimate use and mutual comprehension of creative linguistic 'deviations' and 'subversions'